What is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?

Useful Rulings on Fair Debt Buying Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Fair Debt Buying Practices Act

LCR ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC VS RENES RECINTO

Analysis Recinto asserts the Complaint is uncertain because it is not clear when ACR acquired the debt, which, in turn, renders it unclear whether it is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. The Fair Debt Buying Practices Act applies to “all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014.” (Civ. Code, § 1788.2(d).) The terms of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”) apply to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (Civ. Code, § 1788.50(c).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

L.A . COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION VS THE PREMIER SHOP LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Under an action of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civ. Code § 1788.50 et seq.), Plaintiff needs to use Mandatory JC Form CIV-105.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS SPENCER DAVIS, ET AL.

The Court willthus sustain the demurrer as to the second cause of action Third Cause of Action, Violations of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code § 1788.50, et. seq. – Cross-Defendants contend the FXC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to Alice and fails to sufficiently factually allege the debt at issue is "charged-off consumer debt".

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

PIEDMON CAPITAL VS JESSEE

Defendant argues the Rosenthal Act, and, in particular, the requirements of section 1788.58 apply to assignees such as plaintiff and to the present debt. The opposition argues this is a straight-forward breach of contract action which has been properly alleged as to the nature of the debt and the amount owing. The opposition fails to cite to any authority, however, which exempts plaintiff from the requirements of section 1788.58.

  • Hearing

SHIO VS. WANG

(Civil Code 1788.50(a)(1).) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he loaned money to defendant himself, not that he purchased a debt owed by defendant to someone else. Defendant may well have a point that plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. The complaint alleges that funds were loaned to defendant in 1996 and 1997, and that defendant signed a promissory note in 1999. However, in order to defend this action on the merits, defendant needs to file a proper motion for relief from default, supported by evidence.

  • Hearing

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB V. MICHAEL RINGHAUSEN

Civil Code § 1788.50(a)(1). An insurance company filing a subrogation claim is not a “debt buyer.” So § 1788.61 does not apply. Nor can the court grant relief under CCP § 473(b). Application for relief under CCP § 473(b) must be made within six months after the “proceeding was taken.” The court cannot grant relief under CCP § 473 if the defendant files his motion more than six months after the date of entry of the default because the court lacks jurisdiction to act on the motion. Thompson v.

  • Hearing

FLEXI-VAN LEASING INC. VS EXCEL TRUCKING SERVICES INC.

Code §1788.50, (4) Violation of Civ. Code §1770, (5) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, (6) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, (7) Declaratory Judgement Pursuant 28 U.S.C. §2201, and (8) Breach of Contract. PRESENTATION: The instant demurrer and special motion to strike were filed by Plaintiff on February 28, 2020. Opposition to both was filed on June 8, 2020. No reply has been filed for either demurrer or special motion to strike.

  • Hearing

BANK OF THE WEST VS. KITSIA'S TRANSPORTS INC. ET AL

(See Civil Code § 1788.50 et seq.) It is inapposite to this commercial financing transaction between plaintiff and defendants. In addition, the application is untimely under Civil Code § 1788.61(a)(2). Defendant is not entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) [void for improper service]. First, the application under this section is untimely because the default judgment is not void on its face and therefore, the timing provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5 apply.

  • Hearing

BH FINANCIAL GROUP LLC VS SMITH

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff's allegations indicate that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS ANDERSON

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," presumably as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 5.) It alleges that the subject credit-card account was purchased after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 4.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

FOXCROFT PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL VS UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC

The court found that Plaintiff’s previous request for entry of default was submitted on form CIV-105, evidencing the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civil Code §§ 1788.50, et seq.) The court also found Plaintiff’s request for entry of default failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Code section 1788.58 for defaults by a debt buyer on consumer debt.(Civil Code § 1788.58, subdivisions (3)-(8).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC VS VEGAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, ET AL.

The court found that Plaintiff’s previous request for entry of default was submitted on form CIV-105, evidencing the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civil Code §§ 1788.50, et seq.) The court also found Plaintiff’s request for entry of default failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Code section 1788.58 for defaults by a debt buyer on consumer debt.(Civil Code § 1788.58, subdivisions (3)-(8).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CAMPOY VS. REITZFELD

Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Reitzfeld only) The Fair Debt Buying Practices act “only applies to consumer debts sold on or after January 1, 2014.” Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th 1070, 1079 n. 3. Plaintiff has not alleged that the debt in question is a consumer debt within the scope of the FBBPA.

  • Hearing

NEWSOM V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC

INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Tabitha Newsom (“Plaintiff”) pursuant 24 to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the Complaint, 25 filed on September 15, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the 26 form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff denies 27 any debt is owed. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS GURGEN HAKOBKYOKHVYAN

Compliance with CRC 3.1800 (1) Use of CIV-100 (or CIV-105 per Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) YES (2) Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment N/A (No Does) (3) Declaration of non-military status for each defendant YES (4) Summary of the case YES (5) 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support YES (6) Exhibits (as necessary) YES (7) Interest computation (as necessary) N/A (8) Cost memorandum YES (9) Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) N/A (10) Proposed Judgment YES DAMAGES

  • Hearing

CAVALRY SPV I LLC VS NAYLOR

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges indicate that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

CAVALRY SPV I LLC VS NAYLOR

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶ 6.) It alleges indicate that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

PMGI FINANCIAL LLC VS. SMITH

(See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].) Plaintiff alleges that it complied with portions of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (¶ 14.) As such, the requirements of the Act are applicable here.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

PMGI FINANCIAL LLC VS. SMITH

(See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].) Plaintiff alleges that it complied with portions of the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (¶ 14.) As such, the requirements of the Act are applicable here.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

BH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC VS VEGAN HOUSE RESTAURANT, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800 provides “a party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105)”.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

CHAMBERS V. CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Fair Debt 24 Buying Practices Act, Civil Code sections 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”).

  • Hearing

DAVIS V. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC

INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative class action brought by plaintiff Marla Marie Davis (“Plaintiff”) 24 pursuant to the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“CFDBPA”). According to the 25 Complaint, filed on October 26, 2016, Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation 26 in the form of a consumer credit account issued by Citibank, N.A. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff 27 denies any debt is owed. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC VS FLORES

Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a "debt buyer," as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50(a). (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5.) It alleges that it purchased the subject debt after 1/1/14. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) As such, the complaint is governed by Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act. (See Civil Code section 1788.50(d) ["This title shall apply to debt buyers with respect to all consumer debt sold or resold on or after January 1, 2014."].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

HORNER V. CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

INTRODUCTION 23 This is a putative consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Fair Debt 24 Buying Practices Act, Civil Code sections 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”).

  • Hearing

CHAMBERS V. CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

INTRODUCTION 2 This is a putative consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Fair Debt 3 Buying Practices Act, Civil Code sections 1788.50-1788.64 (“CFDBPA”).

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.